Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

But don't you think that branding someone a fraud merely because he won't toe the party line is a violation of the spirit of academia?

Peter,

A fraud is someone who uses deceit, trickery, or outright lies to advance their theory or position. One who doesn't toe the party line is not, per se, a fraud.

When there is overwhelming abundance of evidence gathered by numerous independent sources to create a consensus, refusing to adhere to that consensus doesn't make one a fraud. It just makes one look, well, blind or silly perhaps, or at worst, intransigent and/or stupid.

Which only makes my point.

I'm beginning to wonder if you really have a point, and if so, how does this make your point?

And I notice (hard to miss, really) that you still haven't answered a number of questions. Makes one wonder, too, if you're at all informed on the subject (the Holocaust) or if you just like to wallow in rhetorical b.s.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

I will repeat, people keep changing the story all the time, making the numbers incredibly and unrealistically high, society allows this, why? Because if you question any official statement of the holocaust, dare say the numbers are out of proportion, what happens? You are labelled anti-semitic. Doing so is bigotry in its own right.

What "numbers" (you know, all those human beings created and loved by God) are "credible" and "realistic", and what are your sources?

What constitutes an "official statement of the holocaust"?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.

Questions?

IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.

You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.

Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.

What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?

What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )

Consensus?

Try again.

Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".

The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:

Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)

Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.

Without reiterating Orthonorm's excellent comments, I would ask you what is the information you've seen (you know, sources?),

Have you watched the video linked to this thread by Ioannis Climacus? I know nothing of David Cole's background, except that he identifies himself as a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice. Might he be a nut? I don't know. Having watched his rational presentation of his case, however, challenged me to think about all the images I'd been fed regarding the Holocaust.

PS.. Oh and Historical Scholarship is not a "Received Tradition". That makes it sound like something taken on Faith. Rather the expert study of History is a "Social Science" .

And yet it sounds to me as if there's still a consensus belief, such that the refusal to adhere to it automatically marks one as a fraud whether that person is truly a fraud or not. That looks to me like how we treat religious dogma.

There is no "Party" and therefore no Party Line. Any scholar who came up with credible evidence that could hold up would the the Academic Toast of the Town..Book deals.. Oprah ( if she were still on) etc. The sad fact is that Holocaust Denial doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's been labeled a Fraud because of specious evidence that has not held up. Sorry.

And yet, you're still resorting to your appeal to consensus. I see nothing in here that actually refutes my suspicion that there is a party line that a historian must toe if he wants to be taken seriously.

The problem is using the term "Party Line" as a pejorative term.

Yes, Holocaust Deniers are laughed at. There is no motive for that which I can think of other than that their arguments are laughable within a scholarly context.

For example, if someone is in a PhD history program at a top University, lets say Princeton. And they attempt to present a written thesis supporting Holocaust Denial, they wouldn't be able to get away with it. In fact, the department head would probably place a call to the admissions people and try to find out how such a crack-pot got into the dept. in the first place.

That's not because there is a "Party Line" that for some inexplicable reason cant be challenged. Rather it is because at the higher levels of scholarship idiocy and weak evidence are not tolerated.

All you're doing Peter is spinning words.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 11:13:04 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

All such events will be better understood as time goes by. If some new calculation says 6 million deaths vs 5.7 ( or vice versa), that is entirely possible.

But to say it never happened or to put forward numbers like 200,00 to 300,00 deaths are extraordinarily unlikely to be credible based on the volumes of evidence already in hand and well understood.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

All such events will be better understood as time goes by. If some new calculation says 6 million deaths vs 5.7 ( or vice versa), that is entirely possible.

But to say it never happened or to put forward numbers like 200,00 to 300,00 deaths are extraordinarily unlikely to be credible based on the volumes of evidence already in hand and well understood.

Or to use words like "unrealistic" or "incredible" without defining what that means in the context of the discussion and without referencing sources, and without establishing what exactly *is* realistic and credible is, at the very best, extremely lame, and no argument at all.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

All such events will be better understood as time goes by. If some new calculation says 6 million deaths vs 5.7 ( or vice versa), that is entirely possible.

But to say it never happened or to put forward numbers like 200,00 to 300,00 deaths are extraordinarily unlikely to be credible based on the volumes of evidence already in hand and well understood.

Or to use words like "unrealistic" or "incredible" without defining what that means in the context of the discussion and without referencing sources, and without establishing what exactly *is* realistic and credible is, at the very best, extremely lame, and no argument at all.

Credible evidence is evidence that holds up under rigorous scrutiny.

Holocaust Denial theories have been labeled as "Academic Fraud" by such leading organizations as the "American Historical Association". That position is consistent within the entirety of top level historical scholarship.

Therefore, on the face of it, it appears that Holocaust Denial theories are to date, not credible and so much so that they are actually termed as " "Fraud" which is an extreme characterization for professional scholars to use.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 11:42:40 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

All such events will be better understood as time goes by. If some new calculation says 6 million deaths vs 5.7 ( or vice versa), that is entirely possible.

But to say it never happened or to put forward numbers like 200,00 to 300,00 deaths are extraordinarily unlikely to be credible based on the volumes of evidence already in hand and well understood.

Or to use words like "unrealistic" or "incredible" without defining what that means in the context of the discussion and without referencing sources, and without establishing what exactly *is* realistic and credible is, at the very best, extremely lame, and no argument at all.

Credible evidence is evidence that holds up under rigorous scrutiny.

Holocaust Denial theories have been labeled as "Academic Fraud" by such leading organizations as the "American Historical Association". That position is consistent within the entirety of top level historical scholarship.

Therefore, on the face of it, it appears that Holocaust Denial theories are to date, not credible and so much so that they are actually termed as " "Fraud" which is an extreme characterization for professional scholars to use.

Precisely what I was trying to get at, but you said it more precisely. Thanks.

Better watch out, though--Peter might think that the "American Historical Association" is one of those subversive parties whose line must be toed under threat of some kind of horrible excommunication, exile, and torture !

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Yes, Holocaust Deniers are laughed at. There is no motive for that which I can think of other than that their arguments are laughable within a scholarly context.

For example, if someone is in a PhD history program at a top University, lets say Princeton. And they attempt to present a written thesis supporting Holocaust Denial, they wouldn't be able to get away with it. In fact, the department head would probably place a call to the admissions people and try to find out how such a crack-pot got into the dept. in the first place.

And that folks, is all the Holocaust supporters have going for them. Go ahead, mock the revisionists, claim over and over again the no credible historian would say otherwise, etc. etc. Why is it that the Holocaust historians flee from debate every time the issue arises? Mostly because they make a fool out of themselves time after time. Contradictory stories and reconstructed "evidence" based on Soviet propaganda are all they have.

I am not even an expert on the issue, but put me one-on-one in a room with a Holocaust "historian", and I will tear him to shreds (figuratively speaking). These people are the real jokes. Have we really reached the point where we no longer critically examine the authenticity of Soviet evidence?

The only way to defend their pretentious claims is silence the opposition. Refuse to discuss the issue, imprison the "deniers", stereotype them as white supremacists or Islamic fundamentalists, etc. Truth does not fear investigation!

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Yes, Holocaust Deniers are laughed at. There is no motive for that which I can think of other than that their arguments are laughable within a scholarly context.

For example, if someone is in a PhD history program at a top University, lets say Princeton. And they attempt to present a written thesis supporting Holocaust Denial, they wouldn't be able to get away with it. In fact, the department head would probably place a call to the admissions people and try to find out how such a crack-pot got into the dept. in the first place.

And that folks, is all the Holocaust supporters have going for them. Go ahead, mock the revisionists, claim over and over again the no credible historian would say otherwise, etc. etc. Why is it that the Holocaust historians flee from debate every time the issue arises? Mostly because they make a fool out of themselves time after time. Contradictory stories and reconstructed "evidence" based on Soviet propaganda are all they have.

I am not even an expert on the issue, but put me one-on-one in a room with a Holocaust "historian", and I will tear him to shreds (figuratively speaking). These people are the real jokes. Have we really reached the point where we no longer critically examine the authenticity of Soviet evidence?

The only way to defend their pretentious claims is silence the opposition. Refuse to discuss the issue, imprison the "deniers", stereotype them as white supremacists or Islamic fundamentalists, etc. Truth does not fear investigation!

Wow! Really?Really??

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately provocative, incredibly prideful and arrogant, or just plain young and stupid. Perhaps a combination of all of those. I could give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you may just be talking (well, writing) tongue-in-cheek, but somehow I don't think so.

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

As for you tearing to shreds ("figuratively speaking") a respected Holocaust historian, well....ROTFL!!!!!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Yes, Holocaust Deniers are laughed at. There is no motive for that which I can think of other than that their arguments are laughable within a scholarly context.

For example, if someone is in a PhD history program at a top University, lets say Princeton. And they attempt to present a written thesis supporting Holocaust Denial, they wouldn't be able to get away with it. In fact, the department head would probably place a call to the admissions people and try to find out how such a crack-pot got into the dept. in the first place.

And that folks, is all the Holocaust supporters have going for them. Go ahead, mock the revisionists, claim over and over again the no credible historian would say otherwise, etc. etc. Why is it that the Holocaust historians flee from debate every time the issue arises? Mostly because they make a fool out of themselves time after time. Contradictory stories and reconstructed "evidence" based on Soviet propaganda are all they have.

I am not even an expert on the issue, but put me one-on-one in a room with a Holocaust "historian", and I will tear him to shreds (figuratively speaking). These people are the real jokes. Have we really reached the point where we no longer critically examine the authenticity of Soviet evidence?

The only way to defend their pretentious claims is silence the opposition. Refuse to discuss the issue, imprison the "deniers", stereotype them as white supremacists or Islamic fundamentalists, etc. Truth does not fear investigation!

LOL. .Fluff and bluster will get you no where.

I googled the American Historical Association web page and found a further statement:

The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place.

Yes, Holocaust Deniers are laughed at. There is no motive for that which I can think of other than that their arguments are laughable within a scholarly context.

For example, if someone is in a PhD history program at a top University, lets say Princeton. And they attempt to present a written thesis supporting Holocaust Denial, they wouldn't be able to get away with it. In fact, the department head would probably place a call to the admissions people and try to find out how such a crack-pot got into the dept. in the first place.

And that folks, is all the Holocaust supporters have going for them. Go ahead, mock the revisionists, claim over and over again the no credible historian would say otherwise, etc. etc. Why is it that the Holocaust historians flee from debate every time the issue arises? Mostly because they make a fool out of themselves time after time. Contradictory stories and reconstructed "evidence" based on Soviet propaganda are all they have.

I am not even an expert on the issue, but put me one-on-one in a room with a Holocaust "historian", and I will tear him to shreds (figuratively speaking). These people are the real jokes. Have we really reached the point where we no longer critically examine the authenticity of Soviet evidence?

The only way to defend their pretentious claims is silence the opposition. Refuse to discuss the issue, imprison the "deniers", stereotype them as white supremacists or Islamic fundamentalists, etc. Truth does not fear investigation!

Perhaps you would tear apart a 5th grader arguing the holocaust but you cant be serious. You're trolling on purpose. C'mon.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

Nothing can justify the actions of the Nazis. Forcing the enemies of the Third Reich into concentration camps was entirely wrong.

Creating propaganda to not only demonize the German people, but to detract from the crimes committed by the Allies has no justification either.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Actually the burden of proof is on you because you are accusing historians of deception. Your accusations are also that a commonly held belief is not accurate.

Here's the link for the study about the jewish fat soap. Translated for your reading. Im not saying it happened, but it looks like these folks say it did.

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

Nothing can justify the actions of the Nazis. Forcing the enemies of the Third Reich into concentration camps was entirely wrong.

Creating propaganda to not only demonize the German people, but to detract from the crimes committed by the Allies has no justification either.

You are dodging and deflecting. You say you can provide **credible** evidence with **references**, etc. Well.....never mind what I accept, being a Jew, having lived amongst and with survivors, and read multiple credible sources (heck, I even went to school a long, long time ago!!)---do what you say you can do. You know, put up or shut up.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

Nothing can justify the actions of the Nazis. Forcing the enemies of the Third Reich into concentration camps was entirely wrong.

Creating propaganda to not only demonize the German people, but to detract from the crimes committed by the Allies has no justification either.

You are dodging and deflecting. You say you can provide **credible** evidence with **references**, etc. Well.....never mind what I accept, being a Jew, having lived amongst and with survivors, and read multiple credible sources (heck, I even went to school a long, long time ago!!)---do what you say you can do. You know, put up or shut up.

I am not dodgeing anything. I have said quite plainly that I will discuss the issue with you (and provide evidence for my claims). All I have asked of you is to provide a preliminary statement concerning what you understand the Holocaust to be. I do not wish to create a strawman of your beliefs.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

Nothing can justify the actions of the Nazis. Forcing the enemies of the Third Reich into concentration camps was entirely wrong.

Creating propaganda to not only demonize the German people, but to detract from the crimes committed by the Allies has no justification either.

You are dodging and deflecting. You say you can provide **credible** evidence with **references**, etc. Well.....never mind what I accept, being a Jew, having lived amongst and with survivors, and read multiple credible sources (heck, I even went to school a long, long time ago!!)---do what you say you can do. You know, put up or shut up.

I am not dodgeing anything. I have said quite plainly that I will discuss the issue with you (and provide evidence for my claims). All I have asked of you is to provide a preliminary statement concerning what you understand the Holocaust to be. I do not wish to create a strawman of your beliefs.

Paleeeeeze...give me a break. As PP said, the burden of proof is on Y O U. If you haven't figured out what my understanding of the Holocaust is yet, you're dimmer than I thought.

I'll say it one last time, and then I'm done with you--put up or shut up!

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 03:29:16 PM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence (see Marc1152's definition above) with references (plural, you notice), etc. that either the Holocaust did not happen, or if it did, that the numbers given for those who perished is grossly overstated and if so, by how much.

Can do. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies on you (or anyone who claims it exists in the first place), but most people have already heard that pitiful song, so we'll jump right in. Before we being, however, I need to understand where you are coming from. Which holocaust do you believe in? Do you accept the traditional version presented at Nuremberg (i.e. shrunken heads, Jewish-fat soap bars, Jewish-skin lampshades,etc.), or do you accept the more modern version (which insists entirely on gassing and medical experimentation)? Do you accept the traditional locations of the camps (the original reports stated that death camps existed within German borders) or the more modern consensus (the death camps were all located outside of German borders)?

Oh, and by the way, if the Holocaust did happen, and the numbers are smaller than is given by a consensus (there's that naughty word again!) of credible, respected historians, lawyers, and survivors, does that somehow justify the death of a single victim, and somehow make it better? It saddens me to say that the tone of your posts suggests that it does.

Nothing can justify the actions of the Nazis. Forcing the enemies of the Third Reich into concentration camps was entirely wrong.

Creating propaganda to not only demonize the German people, but to detract from the crimes committed by the Allies has no justification either.

You are dodging and deflecting. You say you can provide **credible** evidence with **references**, etc. Well.....never mind what I accept, being a Jew, having lived amongst and with survivors, and read multiple credible sources (heck, I even went to school a long, long time ago!!)---do what you say you can do. You know, put up or shut up.

I am not dodgeing anything. I have said quite plainly that I will discuss the issue with you (and provide evidence for my claims). All I have asked of you is to provide a preliminary statement concerning what you understand the Holocaust to be. I do not wish to create a strawman of your beliefs.

Paleeeeeze...give me a break. As PP said, the burden of proof is on Y O U. If you haven't figured out what my understanding of the Holocaust is yet, you're dimmer than I thought.

Now you are dodging my questions. I am more than happy to supply evidence for my claims, but I will not begin until I first understand my opponent's position. Are my two questions that difficult to answer?

The burden of proof certainly does not lie upon me. Regardless of how you wish to twist it, the Holocaust is not an axiom. It must be proven and defended like any other idea.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

What "numbers" (you know, all those human beings created and loved by God) are "credible" and "realistic", and what are your sources?

What constitutes an "official statement of the holocaust"?

Are you trying to get smart? Why do you act like that? Everyone puts statistics in numbers, doesn't mean they aren't human. People like you need to be kicked because you are just trying to start a fight. You are trying to discredit me by saying I don't think Jews are human when I definitely do. People like YOU are the true bigots here.

The fact that they keep radically changing the numbers is a little suspicious. The numbers they report now are increadibly unrealistic. Well, atleast to people with common sense.

I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

But when the numbers they throw-out make no sense, you have a reason to doubt it.

The USHMM’s collections contain more than 12,750 artifacts, 49 million pages of archival documents, 80,000 historical photographs, 200,000 registered survivors, 1,000 hours of archival footage, 84,000 library items, and 9,000 oral history testimonies. It also has teacher fellows in every state in the United States and has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994.[2]

Did you catch that number? At the US Holocaust Museum in DC alone they have 49 MILLION documents. And who knows who many more they have in Israel and at other Museums and at Universities not to even mention in the former Soviet Union?

How much documentation does a sane person need?

So blathering away on the internet with mouth breathers who are unqualified and unable to read the documentation is a colossal waste of band width. The people here advocating Holocaust Denial have other agenda's that they have made clear many times before. No amount of evidence , millions upon millions of documents, thousands of eyewitness accounts will ever be enough. These guys are not objective investigators.

I would stay clear of entering into a blather-fest with them. They are unpersuadable.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The USHMM’s collections contain more than 12,750 artifacts, 49 million pages of archival documents, 80,000 historical photographs, 200,000 registered survivors, 1,000 hours of archival footage, 84,000 library items, and 9,000 oral history testimonies. It also has teacher fellows in every state in the United States and has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994.[2]

Did you catch that number? At the US Holocaust Museum in DC alone they have 49 MILLION documents. And who knows who many more they have in Israel and at other Museums and at Universities not to even mention in the former Soviet Union?

How much documentation does a sane person need?

So blathering away on the internet with mouth breathers who are unqualified and unable to read the documentation is a colossal waste of band width. The people here advocating Holocaust Denial have other agenda's that they have made clear many times before. No amount of evidence , millions upon millions of documents, thousands of eyewitness accounts will ever be enough. These guys are not objective investigators.

I would stay clear of entering into a blather-fest with them. They are unpersuadable.

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers. There is not a single picture, video, or even document detailing mass exterminations via Zyklon B.

The evidence proves that these camps existed, people got sick, people died, people were forced into labor, etc. I challenge you to provide one Nazi document that speaks of the existence of gas chambers. Don't give me the cliche line of "the Nazi's destroyed all of the documents". We broke German code well before the camps were liberated, so there would be Allied documentation of said atrocities.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Usually it takes more than arguing that the Holocaust numbers are slightly high for most people to use the anti-Semitism card.

My word, you are totally wrong. We have some people on this very thread who do it.

Some of us look at context and past posts, too.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

The USHMM’s collections contain more than 12,750 artifacts, 49 million pages of archival documents, 80,000 historical photographs, 200,000 registered survivors, 1,000 hours of archival footage, 84,000 library items, and 9,000 oral history testimonies. It also has teacher fellows in every state in the United States and has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994.[2]

Did you catch that number? At the US Holocaust Museum in DC alone they have 49 MILLION documents. And who knows who many more they have in Israel and at other Museums and at Universities not to even mention in the former Soviet Union?

How much documentation does a sane person need?

So blathering away on the internet with mouth breathers who are unqualified and unable to read the documentation is a colossal waste of band width. The people here advocating Holocaust Denial have other agenda's that they have made clear many times before. No amount of evidence , millions upon millions of documents, thousands of eyewitness accounts will ever be enough. These guys are not objective investigators.

I would stay clear of entering into a blather-fest with them. They are unpersuadable.

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers. There is not a single picture, video, or even document detailing mass exterminations via Zyklon B.

The evidence proves that these camps existed, people got sick, people died, people were forced into labor, etc. I challenge you to provide one Nazi document that speaks of the existence of gas chambers. Don't give me the cliche line of "the Nazi's destroyed all of the documents". We broke German code well before the camps were liberated, so there would be Allied documentation of said atrocities.

Have you read this, already posted above earlier? the figure of 6 million first became public in an affidavit by Wilhelm Hoettl, dated 25 November 1945 and presented to the Nuremberg Tribunal in evidence. (Hoettl was a close associate of Eichmann). (Here's more from him: "Approximately 4,000,000 Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2,000,000 met death in other ways, the major part of whom were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia." gleaned from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_H%C3%B6ttlwhich references this:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-14-45.asp But why would you believe the testimony of a Nazi?

I also have oral evidence from my step-father who was one of the first American soldiers to walk into the newly liberated Buchenwald. He spoke (when he could bring himself to do so) of gas chambers, piles and piles and piles of human bones, dead people who had yet to decompose, piles and piles and piles of human belongings, and survivors. Yes, those very people of which there are so many horrific photographs. Some of them actually spoke English, and he spoke some German. He heard stories of people going to the "showers" and never coming back--ever. But I know you wouldn't believe him, so why bother even mentioning it?

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers

I gave evidence of its existence. You seconded it with a nifty picture. So how is what you said an argument against their existence again?

PP

Because there is no evidence to suggest it was a gas chamber. It was never used as one, and it is supposedly "disguised" as a shower. What would lead you to believe it was used for homicidal purposes in the first place?

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers

I gave evidence of its existence. You seconded it with a nifty picture. So how is what you said an argument against their existence again?

PP

Because there is no evidence to suggest it was a gas chamber. It was never used as one, and it is supposedly "disguised" as a shower. What would lead you to believe it was used for homicidal purposes in the first place?

That is not what you asked. You stated there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers, not that they were never used.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers

I gave evidence of its existence. You seconded it with a nifty picture. So how is what you said an argument against their existence again?

PP

Because there is no evidence to suggest it was a gas chamber. It was never used as one, and it is supposedly "disguised" as a shower. What would lead you to believe it was used for homicidal purposes in the first place?

That is not what you asked. You stated there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers, not that they were never used.

PP

But if these gas chambers were never used, then isn't the claim that they were used not true? BTW, I think it is a reasonable request to define what is meant by the term holocaust. If it means using cadavers to make soap or lampshades, then hasn't this been shown to be untrue? If it means simply rounding up people the Nazis did not like and putting them in concentration camps with forced labor, then this is true.

The USHMM’s collections contain more than 12,750 artifacts, 49 million pages of archival documents, 80,000 historical photographs, 200,000 registered survivors, 1,000 hours of archival footage, 84,000 library items, and 9,000 oral history testimonies. It also has teacher fellows in every state in the United States and has welcomed almost 400 university fellows from 26 countries since 1994.[2]

Did you catch that number? At the US Holocaust Museum in DC alone they have 49 MILLION documents. And who knows who many more they have in Israel and at other Museums and at Universities not to even mention in the former Soviet Union?

How much documentation does a sane person need?

So blathering away on the internet with mouth breathers who are unqualified and unable to read the documentation is a colossal waste of band width. The people here advocating Holocaust Denial have other agenda's that they have made clear many times before. No amount of evidence , millions upon millions of documents, thousands of eyewitness accounts will ever be enough. These guys are not objective investigators.

I would stay clear of entering into a blather-fest with them. They are unpersuadable.

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers. There is not a single picture, video, or even document detailing mass exterminations via Zyklon B.

The evidence proves that these camps existed, people got sick, people died, people were forced into labor, etc. I challenge you to provide one Nazi document that speaks of the existence of gas chambers. Don't give me the cliche line of "the Nazi's destroyed all of the documents". We broke German code well before the camps were liberated, so there would be Allied documentation of said atrocities.

Have you read this, already posted above earlier? the figure of 6 million first became public in an affidavit by Wilhelm Hoettl, dated 25 November 1945 and presented to the Nuremberg Tribunal in evidence. (Hoettl was a close associate of Eichmann). (Here's more from him: "Approximately 4,000,000 Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2,000,000 met death in other ways, the major part of whom were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia." gleaned from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_H%C3%B6ttlwhich references this:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-14-45.asp

You are basing this off a man who worked for the US government, as well as a man who lived until 1999...

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers

I gave evidence of its existence. You seconded it with a nifty picture. So how is what you said an argument against their existence again?

PP

Because there is no evidence to suggest it was a gas chamber. It was never used as one, and it is supposedly "disguised" as a shower. What would lead you to believe it was used for homicidal purposes in the first place?

That is not what you asked. You stated there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers, not that they were never used.

PP

But if these gas chambers were never used, then isn't the claim that they were used not true? BTW, I think it is a reasonable request to define what is meant by the term holocaust. If it means using cadavers to make soap or lampshades, then hasn't this been shown to be untrue? If it means simply rounding up people the Nazis did not like and putting them in concentration camps with forced labor, then this is true.

Ioannis specifically argued that the chambers did not exist. Not if they were used or not. Now that that argument has been debunked, AND I provided proof of the study concerning the Jewish Fat in the soap, what about the worker's own words concerning the Treblinka gas chamber? Did these fellows simply make it up?

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I also have oral evidence from my step-father who was one of the first American soldiers to walk into the newly liberated Buchenwald. He spoke (when he could bring himself to do so) of gas chambers, piles and piles and piles of human bones, dead people who had yet to decompose, piles and piles and piles of human belongings, and survivors. Yes, those very people of which there are so many horrific photographs. Some of them actually spoke English, and he spoke some German. He heard stories of people going to the "showers" and never coming back--ever. But I know you wouldn't believe him, so why bother even mentioning it?

Again, this doesn't prove anything. Revisionists will readily admit that conditions in the camps toward the end of the war were horrible. Due to bomb raids, many roads and railroads were destroyed, which effectively prevented supplies from reaching the camps. It is well known and documented that typhus outbreaks were prone, which lead to large amounts of dead inmates. The lack of food/supplies lead to mass starvation. Did you step-father actually see any gas chambers in operation?

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 04:41:20 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

None of that "evidence" suggests the existence of homicidal gas chambers

I gave evidence of its existence. You seconded it with a nifty picture. So how is what you said an argument against their existence again?

PP

Because there is no evidence to suggest it was a gas chamber. It was never used as one, and it is supposedly "disguised" as a shower. What would lead you to believe it was used for homicidal purposes in the first place?

That is not what you asked. You stated there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers, not that they were never used.

PP

But if these gas chambers were never used, then isn't the claim that they were used not true? BTW, I think it is a reasonable request to define what is meant by the term holocaust. If it means using cadavers to make soap or lampshades, then hasn't this been shown to be untrue? If it means simply rounding up people the Nazis did not like and putting them in concentration camps with forced labor, then this is true.

A "holocaust" is a burnt offering, a sacrifice completely consumed by fire. How apt, given what actually happened to millions of people. Putting them into concentration camps with forced labor is only the beginning of what happened to so many of them.

This whole "discussion" is beginning to get grisly and turn my stomach, knowing what I know, having seen and heard what I have.

That some here would quibble over numbers, demand proof where it exists in super-abundance but refuse to look at, much less consider it, and even suggest that it is false absolutely disgusts me.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 04:48:13 PM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Save your breath J Michael, because if you said your step dad saw them in operation Ioannis would find another way to squirm out of it. He stated he could "rip" up a supporter of the current history of events. He cant even support his own stance. What a joke.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Ioannis specifically argued that the chambers did not exist. Not if they were used or not. Now that that argument has been debunked, AND I provided proof of the study concerning the Jewish Fat in the soap, what about the worker's own words concerning the Treblinka gas chamber? Did these fellows simply make it up?

PP

You havn't proven anything. I am asking why do you believe that the "disguised shower" was a homicidal gas chamber in the first place.

The Yad Vashem memorial has rejected the soap myth. It has very little support left even amongst Holocaust supporters.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

This is just the usual bunk that everyone has been fed. Just skimming, I noticed a glaring contradiction between various holocaust stories :

"...At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz."

One of the chief historians on Auschwitz, Franciszek Piper, has stated that the homicidal gas chambers were used no more than 30 minutes a day. How in the world did they manage to fit 6000 people in one gas chamber? More importantly, if Zyclon B was used at Auschwitz, then why is there no Prussian blue staining as there is in the delousing chambers?

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 05:08:53 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

This is just the usual bunk that everyone has been fed. Just skimming, I noticed a glaring contradiction between various holocaust stories :

"...At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz."

One of the chief historians on Auschwitz, Franciszek Piper, has stated that the homicidal gas chambers were used no more than 30 minutes a day. How in the world did they manage to fit 6000 people in one gas chamber? More importantly, if Zyclon B was used at Auschwitz, then why is there no Prussian blue staining as there is in the delousing chambers?

I thought the gas chambers werent used? So if that is so how can you use the Auchwitz historian's quote? Would he be an unreliable source for you?

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

The soap test showed to have human remains in it. These results were certified later on. Whether a memorial or you choose to deny this is not my problem.

I will actually have to look into this. As far as I know, very few Holocaust historians actually promote the soap story, so I was surprised to see it dredged up again. I will get back to you when I know more about it.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

This is just the usual bunk that everyone has been fed. Just skimming, I noticed a glaring contradiction between various holocaust stories :

"...At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz."

One of the chief historians on Auschwitz, Franciszek Piper, has stated that the homicidal gas chambers were used no more than 30 minutes a day. How in the world did they manage to fit 6000 people in one gas chamber? More importantly, if Zyclon B was used at Auschwitz, then why is there no Prussian blue staining as there is in the delousing chambers?

I thought the gas chambers werent used? So if that is so how can you use the Auchwitz historian's quote? Would he be an unreliable source for you?

PP

PP--You can't argue with idiocy. Einstein, that very famous Jew, once said something to the effect of "There are 2 things that are infinite, the universe and human ignorance, and I'm not sure about the first." He also said that "It's harder to crack prejudice than an atom". Ioannis Climacus, who seems to revel in the evil of triumphalism by his own admission, is just proving the truth of those 2 statements.

With that, I am done with this.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

This is just the usual bunk that everyone has been fed. Just skimming, I noticed a glaring contradiction between various holocaust stories :

"...At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz."

One of the chief historians on Auschwitz, Franciszek Piper, has stated that the homicidal gas chambers were used no more than 30 minutes a day. How in the world did they manage to fit 6000 people in one gas chamber? More importantly, if Zyclon B was used at Auschwitz, then why is there no Prussian blue staining as there is in the delousing chambers?

I thought the gas chambers werent used? So if that is so how can you use the Auchwitz historian's quote? Would he be an unreliable source for you?

PP

Gas chambers weren't used, but your own historians contradict each other. When asked about the lack of blue staining in the Auschwitz "gas chamber", Piper responded that this was because of the short time it was operated daily. This clearly contradicts the idea that 6000 people died there on a daily basis, as well as the "witnesses" who spoke of it gassing people non-stop.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.